Supreme Court Strikes Down Law on Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones

[Brainonska511]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-court-abortion-clinic-protests.html?ref=us&_r=0

The Supreme Court has struck down the abortion buffer zone law in the case of McCullen v. Coakley. However, the ruling is relatively narrow, in that it leaves open the door for states enacting measures that protect access to clinics and allows for a graded approach to those access laws (eg: if the more narrowly tailored ones don't work in practice, broader ones could come into play)

As SCOTUSBlog put it: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_26_2014?Page=2

The abortion protests ruling is relatively narrow. The Court makes clear that states can pass laws that specifically ensure access to clinics. It holds that states cannot more broadly prohibit speech on public streets and sidewalks. It also notably rejects the protesters' broadest arguments that such restrictions require strict constitutional scrutiny and are viewpoint based.

A state can go beyond narrow laws that block obstructions to clinics, and more broadly ban abortion protests, only if it builds a record showing that the narrower measures don't work.

Link to opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1168_6k47.pdf

 

[Oldgamer]

They felt that 35 ft was too far, so the state will probably make it a 10 or 15 ft buffer. That is really all they need to do, is shorten it a bit.

 

[Jimzz]

I don't have a problem with this ruling.

These rules if allowed would have lead to more "buffer zones" for other things.

 

[thraashman]

Wonder how long before violence occurs and a similar law has to be again enacted. These laws aren't attacking free speech, they're protecting women from the violence of the psychopaths that harass them outside clinics.

 

[Brainonska511]

Wonder how long before violence occurs and a similar law has to be again enacted. These laws aren't attacking free speech, they're protecting women from the violence of the psychopaths that harass them outside clinics.

True, but the court did suggest some alternatives, like adopting the statute used in NYC:

If the Commonwealth is particularly concerned about harassment, it could also consider an ordinance such as the one adopted in New York City that not only prohibits obstructing access to a clinic, but also makes it a crime “to follow and harass another person within 15 feet of the premises of a reproductive health care facility.” N. Y. C. Admin. Code §8– 803(a)(3) (2014)

 

[nehalem256]

Wonder how long before violence occurs and a similar law has to be again enacted. These laws aren't attacking free speech, they're protecting women from the violence of the psychopaths that harass them outside clinics.

Its a good thing that no one has ever invented anything that allows you to commit violence from 35ft away!()

 

[sportage]

This all depends on just how far the protestor can spit.
BAD RULING!
If that is how the court feels, I'd like to see the court impose the same rules on themselves and their privacy. I bet we have quite a few people around here that would LOVE to have the chance to spit on a supreme court justice. More than a few, actually.

 

[nehalem256]

This all depends on just how far the protestor can spit.
BAD RULING!
If that is how the court feels, I'd like to see the court impose the same rules on themselves and their privacy. I bet we have quite a few people around here that would LOVE to have the chance to spit on a supreme court justice. More than a few, actually.

You think someone can spit 15 feet? :hmm:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

True, but the court did suggest some alternatives, like adopting the statute used in NYC:

An arbitrary distance is exactly that, arbitrary. Options to permit freedom of speech while preventing harassment by penalty if need be seems reasonable.

 

[Zebo]

Wonder how long before violence occurs and a similar law has to be again enacted. These laws aren't attacking free speech, they're protecting women from the violence of the psychopaths that harass them outside clinics.

LOL if someone is intent on doing violence no buffer zone is gonna stop them. You can't bring guns into or within 1000ft of school doesn't stop school shootings.

Anyway good ruling. "free speech zones" are getting way to prevalent and amount to no speech zones. No one should be a special snowflake and immune to criticism.

 

[Oldgamer]

Why doesn't the SC rule in favor of protesters being closer on things like political protests, because didn't they rule not too long ago that protesters, like the Wal-Mart employees have to be sooo many streets away and not in the parking lots or sidewalks? Didn't they also rule on the OWS people on distance? Damn, I need to go look this up now...

 

[CitizenKain]

Hopefully this leads to more pro-life people laying down infront of moving vehicles and getting run over.

 

[nehalem256]

Why doesn't the SC rule in favor of protesters being closer on things like political protests, because didn't they rule not too long ago that protesters, like the Wal-Mart employees have to be sooo many streets away and not in the parking lots or sidewalks? Didn't they also rule on the OWS people on distance? Damn, I need to go look this up now...

Abortion protesters shower

 

[sportage]

You think someone can spit 15 feet? :hmm:

No doubt a real wet one with lots of... oh never mind.
Ever seen the movie Titanic?

 

[Brainonska511]

Hopefully this leads to more pro-life people laying down infront of moving vehicles and getting run over.

They still cannot use protesting as a means to block access to clinics. And local law enforcement still has the power to lawfully order obstructers to move out of the way.

 

[kinev]

Hopefully this leads to more pro-life people laying down infront of moving vehicles and getting run over.

So, people who disagree with you should kill themselves...?

 

[Paratus]

Wonder how long before violence occurs and a similar law has to be again enacted. These laws aren't attacking free speech, they're protecting women from the violence of the psychopaths that harass them outside clinics.

Hmm so if the buffer zones are removed in a stand your ground state and a prof-lifer(s) gets in the face of a pregnant woman with a CCW would she then be justified in shooting said pro-lifers? :hmm:

I see disparity of force, (multiple men vs a single woman) and implied or explicit threats of bodily harm.

So good shoot right?

Maybe the problem works itself out naturally.....

 

[Thump553]

I wonder what the result would have been if the issue was the buffer zone around the Supreme Court building and the Justices. I suspect 180 degrees different.

 

[CitizenKain]

So, people who disagree with you should kill themselves...?

No, I'm saying that I take great enjoyment in watching people that do something incredibly stupid get injured.

 

[Oldgamer]

They still cannot use protesting as a means to block access to clinics. And local law enforcement still has the power to lawfully order obstructers to move out of the way.

I don't think there will be many more abortion clinics honestly, due to all the "trap laws" being created in just about every state that are shutting down the clinics. But if pro-lifers do go and get on their property I imagine they clinic can call the cops and have them arrested for trespassing.